Abstract
Background Widely available rapid testing is pivotal to the fight against COVID-19. Real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) remains the gold standard. We compared two frequently used commercial rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for SARS-CoV-2-antigens, the SD Biosensor SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test (Roche Diagnostics) and the Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test (Abbott Diagnostics), against rRT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 detection.
Methods We compared the tests in 2215 all-comers at a diagnostic centre between February 1 and March 31, 2021. rRT-PCR-positive samples were examined for SARS-CoV-2 variants.
Findings 338 participants (15%) were rRT-PCR-positive for SARS-CoV-2. The sensitivities of Roche-RDT and Abbott-RDT were 60.4% and 56.8% (P<0·0001) and specificities 99.7% and 99.8% (P=0·076), respectively. Sensitivity inversely correlated with rRT-PCR-derived Ct values. Unadjusted, the RDTs had higher sensitivities in individuals referred by treating physicians and health departments than those tested for other reasons, in persons without comorbidities compared to those with comorbidities, in individuals with symptoms suggesting COVID-19, and in the absence of SARS-CoV-2 variants compared to Alpha variant carriers. The associations of sensitivity with clinical symptoms and the SARS-CoV-2 genotype were robust against adjustment for Ct values. Assuming that 10 000 symptomatic individuals are tested, 500 of which are truly positive, the RDTs would generate 38 false-positive and 124 false-negative results. Assuming that 10 000 asymptomatic individuals are tested, including 50 true positives, 18 false-positives and 34 false-negatives would be generated.
Interpretation The sensitivities of the two RDTs are unsatisfactory. This calls into question whether their widespread use is effective in the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.
Funding SYNLAB Holding Deutschland GmbH
Evidence before this study Small studies and a meta-analysis from the Cochrance collaboration indicate vastly different diagnostic efficacies of commercial rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for SARS-CoV-2 antigen. The impact of SARS-CoV-2 variants has not been known.
Added value of this study This is one of the largest real-world studies of the diagnostic efficacy of two widely recommended RDTs SARS-CoV-2 antigen in comparison to rRT-PCR. The sensitivities of the two RDTs are unsatisfactory, mainly in asymptomatic persons. Presence of the SARS-CoV-2 Alpha Variant decreased both tests’ sensitivities significantly.
Implications of all the available evidence Policy and health care providers should account for substantial limitations of RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 particular in asymptomatic persons. Research into alternative approaches to the screening for SARS-CoV-2 should be intensified.
Competing Interest Statement
All authors except Hans-Joerg Wertenauer and Caren Mutschmann are employed by SYNLAB Holding Germany GmbH or its regional subsidiaries. There are no other known conflicts of interest associated with this publication. There was no financial support to SYNLAB or any of its employees from the manufacturers of the assays used in this evaluation, and there has been no other financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome.
Clinical Protocols
Funding Statement
The costs of the study were defrayed by SYNLAB Holding Deutschland GmbH. The management had no role in writing of the report or the decision to submit for publication. There was no financial support to SYNLAB Holding Deutschland GmbH from the manufacturers of the assays used in this evaluation and there has been no other financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome. All authors had full access to all data and assume final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study was approved by Ethics Committee II (Mannheim) of the University of Heidelberg (reference number 2020-417MF) and the German Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data will be made available to researchers upon justified request and formal agreement to make sure that rules of good scientific practice are obeyed and that credit is given to the people who have been in charge of the design and the organization of the study. Interested researchers are invited to address their request or proposal to Prof. Dr. med. Winfried Maerz (winfried.maerz{at}synlab.com). The authors confirm that they accessed and validated these data and that all other researchers can access the data in the same manner the authors did.
